[Rachel's introduction: In Canada, 18 scientists have written to the Prime Minister: "We have united our voices because wild salmon are essential to life in the North Pacific and to the British Columbia economy. We feel the weight of scientific evidence is enough to enact the precautionary principle."]

The following is an open letter sent earlier to Prime Minister Stephan Harper and Premier Gordon Campbell regarding the threat to British Columbia's (BC's) wild Pacific salmon from sea lice breeding on farmed salmon. The letter has been signed by 18 respected scientists and researchers.

We, the undersigned, are convinced by the published scientific evidence that the debate is over; sea lice breeding on farmed salmon are threatening BC's wild Pacific salmon. There are many threats to wild salmon; however there is now extensive peer-reviewed science that sea lice spread from farm to wild salmon and kill juvenile wild salmon. In some cases, sea lice originating from salmon farms are estimated to have killed up to 95% of the wild juvenile salmon that pass salmon farms during their ocean migrations. This is unacceptable for any industry.

The scientific literature reports that sea lice infestations of wild, juvenile salmon are associated with salmon farms and wild salmon population declines in several countries: Canada, Norway, Scotland, and Ireland.

John Fredriksen, owner of Marine Harvest, one of the biggest salmon farming companies, both globally and in Canada, recently stated publicly: "I am concerned about the future for wild salmon. Fish farming should not be allowed in fjords with salmon rivers" (Norwegian newspaper Altaposten July 19, 2007). Earlier this year the BC Special Legislative Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture recommended granting no new net pen farm licenses and moving all existing salmon farms into close-contained facilities. Despite this Pat Bell, British Columbia's Minister of Agriculture and Lands, has granted three more net pen licenses. In consultation with the salmon farming industry and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Pacific Salmon Forum spent $315,000 of the public's funds collecting a baseline dataset to examine sea lice response to fallowing salmon farms. But as of today Marine Harvest and Mainstream Canada have restocked farms spanning the entire Broughton Archipelago. Consequently this definitive study is no longer possible.

We have united our voices because wild salmon are essential to life in the North Pacific and to the BC economy. We feel the weight of scientific evidence is enough to enact the precautionary principle. For wild salmon to survive in an era of major environmental stresses through global climate change, a pathogen barrier must be established between BC's farmed and wild salmon populations; there are no scientific results to the contrary. Furthermore, we are warning the BC public that where farmed and wild salmon populations meet in narrow marine passages, as in Broughton and off Campbell River, we can expect long-term wild salmon stock decline if farmed salmon are not quarantined. When our government ignores the immutable natural law that disease is amplified when host populations are crowded, we pay the price of irreversible loss of a very valuable resource.

We the undersigned agree that based on the published scientific evidence, the only management action that can ensure the protection of wild salmon stocks from farmed salmon is a complete physical barrier to pathogen transmission between wild and farm salmon (closed containment). We are aware that such changes may have economic consequences for the industry. The science is clear. It is now up to the government and the people of Canada to decide whether the economic benefits of aquaculture, as currently practiced, outweigh the threats to wild salmon and the ecosystems and economies that depend on healthy and abundant wild salmon populations.

We write this public letter out of a sense of duty to future generations.

Respectfully,

David Suzuki, Ph.D. Founder David Suzuki Foundation

Daniel Pauly, Ph.D. Director, Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia

[Rachel's introduction: "We must adopt a preventative and precautionary approach to our future. There are safer substitutes for most, if not all, of the toxic chemicals currently being used and released into the environment."--The David Suzuki Foundation]

Ottawa (CP) -- Canada needs to adopt a national environmental health strategy to address how contaminants in the air and water are affecting the public's wellbeing, says a new report released Tuesday by the David Suzuki Foundation.

The report, written by B.C. environmental lawyer David Boyd, will be presented at the Canadian Public Health Association conference in Ottawa.

Entitled "Prescription for a Healthy Canada," Boyd's report says Canada lags behind other countries -- including the United States and Australia -- in monitoring how environmental contaminants affect children, as well as the diseases they cause.

He adds that Canada has weaker standards than other countries on the use of pesticides and the amount of pesticide residues allowed on produce.

One of his key recommendations is that Canada strengthen its laws, regulations and policies to transfer the onus onto industry for proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that their products are safe. He also advocates the use of the "substitution principle," where manufacturers are required to use products with safer alternatives.

"We must adopt a preventative and precautionary approach to our future. There are safer substitutes for most, if not all, of the toxic chemicals currently being used and released into the environment," Boyd writes.

[Rachel's introduction: "The incident shows that risks linked with modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term [and] we call for a stringent application of the precautionary principle. Contamination will continue to spread unless strict controls are enforced and zero contamination of seed is the norm."]

By SOPnewswire

German authorities have found genetically modified rapeseed in conventional crops. A spokesperson for the environmental minister of North Rhine-Westphalia stated that consignments from the company Deutsche Saatgutveredlung contained seeds tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. Glufosinate is sold by the German company Bayer CropScience under the trademarks LIBERTY and BASTA. About 1500 hectares have already been planted with the genetically modified crops. The origin of the contamination is unclear.

Jan Pehrke from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers comments: "Neither seed merchants nor farmers are responsible for this mess. Bayer must take responsibility for the organisms it created and must pay for the damage." Bayer is the world market leader for pesticides. The company sells a variety of crops resistant to glufosinate, including rice, cotton, corn and soybeans. "The incident shows that risks linked with modified crops cannot be controlled in the long term", Pehrke continues. "We call for a stringent application of the precautionary principle. Contamination will continue to spread unless strict controls are enforced and zero contamination of seed is the norm."

The European Union approved imports of rapeseeds tolerant to glufosinate in March 2007. An application to grow modified oilseed rape was, however, rejected in 2004 on environmental grounds. Bayer also applied for permission to import genetically modified rice and soybean. In a similar way to the recent contamination of American long-grain rice, the current case probably goes back to field trials conducted in the late nineties.

Since the cultivation of GM rapeseed is forbidden in Europe, German authorities ruled that the plants have to be destroyed immediately. As the contamination probably was not detected for several years it is highly probable that further areas are affected. The Coalition against Bayer Dangers demands that no further GM crops be approved and demands a cancellation of the import approval for glufosinate resistant rapeseed.

[Rachel's introduction: The Scottish Government also warned, "The precautionary principle means that any animal showing unusual symptoms is reported and is then the subject of immediate and rigorous investigation by vets from the Animal Health Agency.]

By Steve Bargeton, political editor

SCOTLAND'S LIVESTOCK industry was in the grip of a new foot-and-mouth crisis last night after a new outbreak in England.

Livestock movement restrictions were re-instated in Scotland after the confirmation of the outbreak near Egham in Surrey, where a 10- kilometre control zone was set up -- and a cull was confirmed for the farm next door.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the animals must be killed as a "precautionary measure."

Yesterday precautionary tests were carried out on a single sheep showing signs of illness at the Lawrie and Symington market at Lanark while, as events moved quickly, Scottish Government officials insisted Scotland was foot-and-mouth free.

They were proved correct when vets confirmed the animal -- which had a high temperature -- did not have the disease.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said, "It is being tested to make sure it doesn't have anything contagious. But it definitely does not have foot-and-mouth."

The Scottish Government also warned, "The precautionary principle means that any animal showing unusual symptoms is reported and is then the subject of immediate and rigorous investigation by vets from the Animal Health Agency.

"During the August outbreak there were over 130 such investigations, mostly in England but a handful in Scotland. Initial testing proved negative, as did subsequent tests.

"This is what we mean by strict vigilance, looking at every case including the one at Lanark today -- however slight the suspicions -- and following this up meticulously.

"It is a legal obligation to report any suspicion of disease. We must be vigilant against this disease."

In an emergency statement to parliament, rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead described the Surrey outbreak as "a gut-wrenching body blow" for the Scottish industry.

"This development comes only days after we were able to lift the few remaining movement restrictions which were implemented following the previous outbreak of the disease confirmed on August 3," he told MSPs. "This had been an important step for our livestock sector and the red meat sector in their route back to normality."

The minister said he had, from 3pm yesterday, reintroduced a ban on moving animals, but he announced exceptions.

They are -- movement of dairy cows across public highways for milking; of animals for emergency veterinary treatment; and of animals direct to slaughter, subject to supervision.

Describing the new outbreak as "extremely harrowing news," Mr Lochhead said, "We acknowledge that this will have a huge impact on events planned for the next few days.

"However, given the risk of disease spread from animals coming from and going to a number of separate locations, we cannot afford these to go ahead in this period of uncertainty.

"I fully recognise the disruption this means to industry, but I know they understand that it is an essential step."

Mr Lochhead said the Scottish Government's emergency procedures were activated and he was working closely with UK departments and ministers.

Yesterday afternoon the minister took part in an emergency tele- conference chaired by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

First Minister Alex Salmond will today chair a meeting of meat producers, processors, retailers and industry bodies, which was planned before the new Surrey outbreak.

"It is now doubly important, and will focus on both FMD and soaring cereal prices," said Mr Salmond.

"There is no doubt that Scotland's livestock industry is facing a very difficult time, entirely due to factors outwith its control."

He continued, "Livestock farming and production make a huge contribution, not just to our economy, but also to our way of life.

"But high world prices for grain is putting the sector under enormous pressure -- and reports of a foot-and-mouth case in Surrey could hardly have come at a worse time."

Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.